Pun v. Barr

18-174 Pun v. Barr BIA Christensen, IJ A206 478 898 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 14th day of September, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ KAPIL PUN, Petitioner, v. 18-174 NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Dilli Raj Bhatta, Bhatta Law & Associates, PLLC, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Kohsei Ugumori, Senior Litigation Counsel; Brett F. Kinney, Attorney; Karen M. Sams, Law Clerk, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Kapil Pun, a native and citizen of Nepal, seeks review of a December 26, 2017, decision of the BIA affirming a May 31, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Pun’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Kapil Pun, No. A 206 478 898 (B.I.A. Dec. 26, 2017), aff’g No. A 206 478 898 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 31, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as the agency’s final order. See Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir. 2008). We review adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the 2 demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness, . . . the consistency between the applicant’s . . . written and oral statements . . . , the internal consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record . . . , and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements . . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals